TheSixthAxis has some quotes from Epic president Mike Capps published in Edge Magazine E215, now on newsstands. Capps admits "the money's on console," in discussing their platform choices, saying "piracy's already had its impact" on PC sales. ďIf you walked into [Epic's Offices] six years ago, Epic was a PC company. We did one PS2 launch title, and everything else was PC. And now, people are saying 'Why do you hate the PC? Youíre a console-only company'," he tells them. "We still do PC, we still love the PC, but we already saw the impact of piracy: it killed a lot of great independent developers and completely changed our business model." That love aside, Capps seems to be ceding the PC market to social games: "So, maybe Facebook will save PC gaming," adding, "but itís not going to look like Gears of War." Thanks Joao.

While I openly admit it's different, as it isn't a physical good (which is why I go nuts when people compare used cars to used games), you're still taking $50 of value and paying only $20. Again, with the time value of money it's even worse.

Why is the value of playing the game $50 when it comes out and $20 several months later? Why is the buyer ripping off the developer in a few months instead of the developer ripping off the buyer now? This is the heart of the whole issue.

While I openly admit it's different, as it isn't a physical good (which is why I go nuts when people compare used cars to used games), you're still taking $50 of value and paying only $20. Again, with the time value of money it's even worse.

In any case AGAIN, you're ripping people off by doing this. If you walk into a restaurant and order a buffet (I'd argue that going into a restaurant with a buffet is your first mistake, but whatever) and order the all-you-can-eat for $18, then find the quality less than stellar, would you then tell the manager you ate less than expected and didn't enjoy it much so you were only going to pay $9?Of course not!

Food analogies are a bit weak since food is a limited, consumable product and not really comparable to playing a digital copy of a videogame. However, your point still fails even if we accept your analogy. Let's say I do what you've described. How is that any different than waiting for the all-you-can-eat to drop to $9 before eating? You're still not paying the full, original price of $18.

Your argument revolves around the idea that you pay for the "privilege" of doing something, rather than the quality of that experience. I think that mentality is absurd and conducive to exploitation. I don't pay for the privilege of playing crappy games. I pay for the experience of playing good games. The better the experience, the more I pay and the sooner I pay because I don't have to wait as long for the price to drop.

If something is $50 and you take it now yet don't pay until months later, when the price is $20, you've stolen $30 worth of the product in the time you played it.

Not really. The product is exactly the same. It's not like they start removing parts of the game as time progresses. The product hasn't changed, only the price. If I play the game and then buy it for $30, I'm getting the same product as the person who buys it for $30 and then plays it. Neither of us is paying full price. As I've mentioned, I don't pay for the "privilege" of playing game. I pay for quality. This is not difficult to understand.

I'll come over, take the house, then pay you two years later when the price drops further.

Faulty analogy yet again. Houses are a physical product. You can only fit so many people in one house before things get problematic. If you want to make a valid analogy, you would have to make a copy of my house and then pay for that copy eventually. I don't really have any problems with that.

You've done a pretty lousy job considering that your very first mention of my name was followed by a string of insults. If you honestly believe that buying a game for $30 before playing it is completely different from buying a game for $30 after playing it, I think you're deluding yourself. In practical and logical terms, the end result is exactly the same: you are not paying full price. When publishers look at their sales data, they don't make any distinction between you and I. They only see when people bought their game and at what price.

I mean, you have to be a moron to not really be able to tell how much value you'd get from most games.

One could argue that you'd have to be a moron to make assumptions at all when you can very easily just try the game for yourself. Why rely on third-party opinions when your own opinion is far more useful?

There isn't enough coffee in the world for a Jerykk debate, he's an extreme narcissist.

It amazes me that he thinks everyone owes him something, and that he's free to choose just how much and when he pays for something he's already consumed.

It's mind-boggling that he thinks this is ok.I'd be fine if he said "what I'm doing is sketchy and wrong but I feel the industry pushed me here." But he doesn't. He thinks he's 100% justified and doing nothing even remotely incorrect.

As for coffee, none. I'd just rolled out of bed at that point. I'm just baffled that someone can keep justifying this stuff to themselves. And keep putting pages of pages of responses to assumptions no one ever made.

ASeven wrote on May 18, 2010, 11:22:Must concede it may not float since I'm not really familiar with the modding and piracy scene on consoles.

Don't get me wrong, I wish the case were different because piracy can sometimes be a big leverage tool for the consumer when the manufacturer starts being unreasonable but unfortunately Cell is really locked down.

Verno wrote on May 18, 2010, 11:17:Popularity has nothing to do with cracking. Even the shittiest consoles and games end up pirated, it's not like there isn't a huge "cred" incentive for a group to be the first to get bootable games on the PS3 which is no minor console. Your theory doesn't float, sorry.

Must concede it may not float since I'm not really familiar with the modding and piracy scene on consoles.

Popularity has nothing to do with cracking. Even the shittiest consoles and games end up pirated, it's not like there isn't a huge "cred" incentive for a group to be the first to get bootable games on the PS3 which is no minor console. Your theory doesn't float, sorry.

BobBob wrote on May 18, 2010, 11:07:Too much coffee, man?

He must be talking to Jerykk since I'm only seeing half the conversation. Do yourself a favor Beamer, put him on ignore. There isn't enough coffee in the world for a Jerykk debate, he's an extreme narcissist. You're literally wasting your time.

ASeven wrote on May 17, 2010, 16:41:To be honest, one of the main reasons the PS3 hasn't been hacked yet is because only now the PS3 sales are picking up compared to the Xbox.

Wow you're seriously mistaken, almost comically so. The reason the PS3 hasn't been hacked has nothing to do with it's sales which are only 3.7 million behind the Xbox 360 worldwide by the way. The reason is due to IBM's approach to security with the Cell and how the Hypervisor functions. You need to read up on this stuff before you comment on it - http://www.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/products/Cell_Broadband_Engine

It is an incredibly daunting, complex process to get unsigned code to run on the PS3, there are multiple checks that use encryption keys and a hardware TPM.

Yes, that is true and I'm fully aware that the PS3 has a hell of a long way to go before it gets modded that might take months, if not a couple years, to break. My point was more of, if the PS3 had been the most sold console right from the release, I think that the PS3 may have been cracked by now. In a way, the crackers didn't have an incentive because the xbox was the ruling console and the wii close behind. If the PS3 had been the ruling console in sales, maybe a hack would already been out, who knows?

4) As I've stated before, I buy games at the price that I feel they are worth. That can range from $10-$50, depending on how much entertainment and longevity I derive from the game. I do not buy all my games from the bargain bin as you seem to believe.

Wow. You typed half a page yet only this point has ANYTHING to do with what I typed. The rest is you rambling and justifying yourself on things I clearly never even implied. Twisted.

In any case AGAIN, you're ripping people off by doing this. If you walk into a restaurant and order a buffet (I'd argue that going into a restaurant with a buffet is your first mistake, but whatever) and order the all-you-can-eat for $18, then find the quality less than stellar, would you then tell the manager you ate less than expected and didn't enjoy it much so you were only going to pay $9?Of course not!

Yet you do that with computer games. You take the product NOW at the current price, decide if you like it, decide how much you like it, then pay that price LATER. Sales don't work that way! You pay the current price! If you do not like the current price you do not get the product NOW. Wait. Patience. Wait! My god I don't see how this keeps escaping you, or how you think how long you play comes into when you give yourself the privilege of playing it.

If you are truly a moral consumer, you should pre-order all games (deluxe/collectors editions whenever possible). That is what developers and publishers want. Pay full price and buy on release day. That's your duty as a moral consumer.

Oh my god this is so nonsensical it makes my head asplode. Seriously, now you're blaming publishers for morals? No, YOU HAVE NO FUCKING OBLIGATION TO PAY FOR MORE THAN YOU WANT, BUT YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO PAY WHAT IS BEING ASKED WHEN YOU TAKE A PRODUCT! YOU ARE STEALING OTHERWISE, EVEN IF YOU PAY AT A LATER DATE. If something is $50 and you take it now yet don't pay until months later, when the price is $20, you've stolen $30 worth of the product in the time you played it. I don't know how many more ways I can put this, but if you ever sell your house let me know. I'll come over, take the house, then pay you two years later when the price drops further.

You act like playing a shitty game now is better than playing a shitty game later. Timing is irrelevant. I pay for the quality of experience a game provides, not just the experience itself.

NO IT ISN'T YOU LITTLE CREEP! This is what hurts my head so much! Timing is everything because the price is based on time, not quality! YOU CAN'T TAKE SOMETHING NOW AND PAY LATER WITHOUT RIPPING SOMEONE OFF! IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THE CURRENT PRICE DO NOT PLAY IT UNTIL IT FALLS TO WHERE YOU DO!Oh god, you act like this is so hard. I don't understand it at all. I've tried to avoid personal attacks, but your view is equal parts selfish, greedy and simple. Stupid, really. I cannot fathom how stupid. I mean, you have to be a moron to not really be able to tell how much value you'd get from most games. Do you really get fooled that often and think a game worth $20 is actually worth $50? Is it that hard to use the internet to get an appropriate gauge of how good a game likely is? Between reviews which, though inflated, usually give a good indication of what's right and wrong with a game (so you can make a determination if you have half a brain), to clips on youtube to word of mouth on places like this, are you really that often fooled into thinking a mostly shoddy game is worth full price?

If so you're a lost cause and I'll just download the blocker script and block you now, as you're clearly lacking braincells.

ASeven wrote on May 17, 2010, 16:41:To be honest, one of the main reasons the PS3 hasn't been hacked yet is because only now the PS3 sales are picking up compared to the Xbox.

Wow you're seriously mistaken, almost comically so. The reason the PS3 hasn't been hacked has nothing to do with it's sales which are only 3.7 million behind the Xbox 360 worldwide by the way. The reason is due to IBM's approach to security with the Cell and how the Hypervisor functions. You need to read up on this stuff before you comment on it - http://www.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/products/Cell_Broadband_Engine

It is an incredibly daunting, complex process to get unsigned code to run on the PS3, there are multiple checks that use encryption keys and a hardware TPM.

wow, they've chanted their excuse to their stockholders (who demand consistent quarterly profit increases like every bubble economy fuckhead) so much they've actually started to believe their own bullshit.

When did I say you play every minute of every game or enjoy them all? I just said you download most games first and pay for them when the price comes down to how much you feel they developer deserves.

I think you should re-read what you actually said. I'll conveniently cut and paste it for you and even put it in bold:

He'll download a game at launch, play through it, get his hours of entertainment, but not pay until months later when it hits $20.

Based on that statement, you are clearly making the following assumptions:

1) That I play through all the games I download.2) That I spend hours playing each game I download.3) That all of these hours provide entertainment.4) That I wait until all games hit the bargain before I buy them.

Now here is the reality:

1) Many of the games I download don't even get installed. You have to understand that downloading something for free requires no investment whatsoever. It's like taking a lollipop from the dentist's office or a food sample from the supermarket. I have a fast connection with unlimited bandwidth and I can download games while I do other things. As such, if I have even the slightest interest in something, I'll probably download it. That doesn't mean I'll ever get around to installing and playing it, though.

2) I spend about an hour on most of the games I play before losing interest. Most games simply don't interest me these days. Either my attention span is growing shorter or games are getting more generic and uninspired. I tend to think it's the latter.

3) Refer to point 2. I like to give every game a fair chance because I'm aware that some games start off slow. That said, I'm not as patient as I used to be and if I don't see any potential worth within an hour of play, that will usually be the end of my playtime with that game.

4) As I've stated before, I buy games at the price that I feel they are worth. That can range from $10-$50, depending on how much entertainment and longevity I derive from the game. I do not buy all my games from the bargain bin as you seem to believe.

Of course not. But I wait for the price to drop before I play it. See the difference?

No, not really. $20 is $20. Do you not see the hypocrisy of your position? In the eyes of developers and publishers, what's the difference between me waiting two months and buying a game for $30 and you doing the very same thing? No difference at all. Both actions work against the developers/publishers desires. If you are truly a moral consumer, you should pre-order all games (deluxe/collectors editions whenever possible). That is what developers and publishers want. Pay full price and buy on release day. That's your duty as a moral consumer.

So you get the benefit of the game months before you pay money for it.

You act like playing a shitty game now is better than playing a shitty game later. Timing is irrelevant. I pay for the quality of experience a game provides, not just the experience itself. The better the experience, the more I'm willing to pay and the sooner I'm willing to buy. There is no inherent benefit to simply playing a game. There is only a benefit when that game is enjoyable and in those cases, I give the developers and publishers my money.

Maybe he doesn't like getting mislead, manipulated and lied to by PR, marketing firms and piece of shit publishers/developers who shove games out without fully testing, or worst know the bugs are there and just don't give a damn.

Secondly mike capps is a liar, he knows full well, a good game sells whether it is pirated or not. The problem is epic started making shitty games, not piracy.

Thirdly not a single developer or publisher whom spouts this absurd propaganda EVER shows Verifiable or Credible evidence of these bogus claims. They do this willingly and knowingly which makes them liars.

Fourthly they do this becasue they know gamers are STUCK with a broken, buggy and incompetent games, with virtually no recourse.

Fifthly the game and software industry was founded on Try It First, Buy It If You Like It! (most importantly if it actually ran on your computer).

Sixthly the publishers will continue to shove broken and buggy games out the door, since the Game/Software Industry is the only industry where the CUSTOMER has basically NO RIGHTS or RECOURSE.

Seventhly at least in the gaming industry there are more consoles sold than the PC when the top 5 consoles are combined. They never talk about the console pirating, which rampant most of them just need a mod chip, then hell they don't even need to crack them. They just go rent one for $5 or $10 (no idea how much it is, never had or owned a console) copy it, then put it out on the internet.

Eighthly the reason consoles are profitable is because the sell MOST of the games to Rental Stores, which are PREPAID.

Ninethly PC GAMES CAN'T BE RENTED, so they don't have the guarantee of the profits to add to the customer sales.

Tenthly PC game sales rank third just behind xbox and playstation for sales, when all systems are compared individually. That is WITHOUT 90% of the bullshit marketing consoles get.

Eleventhly this is all defiantly STILL part of m$'s plan to push, promote and propagandize the xbox, at the expense of the PC. They want to have full control over everything thing you do and play and m$live is intended to be that dog, they fully intend to minimize the PC. How do we know this is a FACT?

Twelvethly becasue all they have to do when designing a game is to design it for the PC and make it scalable down the consoles, since they are mostly inferior PCs. The reason they don't do this?

Thirteenthly becasue they would have to admit that consoles are inferior and this is all just marketing.

I don't really understand where you keep getting this silly notion that I download and finish every game that comes out and love every minute of it. It's about as absurd as assuming that you buy every game that comes out, beat them all and enjoy every minute.

When did I say you play every minute of every game or enjoy them all? I just said you download most games first and pay for them when the price comes down to how much you feel they developer deserves. Which you often openly admit. What is wrong about that statement?

Secondly, for the games you buy, do you always buy them at full price? No?

Of course not. But I wait for the price to drop before I play it. See the difference?You play it now but don't pay until the price is where you think it belongs. So you get the benefit of the game months before you pay money for it.How you don't see that as being selfish and cheap is beyond me. Do you have a moral compass of any form?